I don’t think there was such a significant a change in the “secrecy” aspect. there was a change of tolerance. like I mean, we found out after the tolerance began to change (and/or as part of changing it). I understand the phrase “open” secret to describe a situation where the factual premise for anti-sexpest action was available to all or most of the people who were in a position to do anything about it. they simply chose not to because of philosophical or self-interested reasons. those reasonings may have changed over time.
the “secret” vs “public” aspect is only relevant at all because many of the people are involved are famous. the survivors have platforms from which to speak, and connections to amplify. the perpetrators are subject to much more scrutiny than some other random person would be. the public in general is interested, now moreso than before due to changes in social norms.
I guess you are asking about sexpest boss situations. if not, one big “open secret” is climate change.
I think you can find similar dynamics all throughout capitalism. A dichotomy where 1 person (let’s be real: usually a man) has power based on age/sex/race/experience/connections/wealth/influence/fame/legal/institution/credentials and there is a steady stream of people they find sexually desirable who are in a position where they must please, and have little realistic recourse for offences. Where convention facilitates these pairings to spend time alone and unobserved by others. But the specific context could be anything. Could be competitive bridge. Working at a car dealership. Getting in with your trade union. Being allowed to plate the desserts.
But it won’t be a national scandal if the chef at your local $30/plate restaurant is getting the new girl drunk and high so he can fuck her with the vague promise that she might gain some favor and advance in the kitchen.
There are also “open secrets” where people do take the actions that their relative power allows, but it’s still kept quiet because the victims don’t want the attention and risk of coming forward about it. Like a few years there was some controversy about a particular streamer getting kicked off twitch over unspecified reasons, which I only learned about (I’d never heard of him or seen anything he did, and couldn’t tell you who he was; I don’t think it was Dr Disrespect, but it was around the time he was kicked off twitch and it was obviously the same sort of crime being done) because a games industry insider I was talking with brought it up and was basically like “yeah it’s exactly the reason that’s the first thing anyone assumes, and that’s why this guy has been banned from all our events and a whole bunch of other events for years already. Everyone knows, but the victims don’t want to come forward so no one has actionable details beyond just keeping him out of stuff.”
I don’t think there was such a significant a change in the “secrecy” aspect. there was a change of tolerance. like I mean, we found out after the tolerance began to change (and/or as part of changing it). I understand the phrase “open” secret to describe a situation where the factual premise for anti-sexpest action was available to all or most of the people who were in a position to do anything about it. they simply chose not to because of philosophical or self-interested reasons. those reasonings may have changed over time.
the “secret” vs “public” aspect is only relevant at all because many of the people are involved are famous. the survivors have platforms from which to speak, and connections to amplify. the perpetrators are subject to much more scrutiny than some other random person would be. the public in general is interested, now moreso than before due to changes in social norms.
I guess you are asking about sexpest boss situations. if not, one big “open secret” is climate change.
I think you can find similar dynamics all throughout capitalism. A dichotomy where 1 person (let’s be real: usually a man) has power based on age/sex/race/experience/connections/wealth/influence/fame/legal/institution/credentials and there is a steady stream of people they find sexually desirable who are in a position where they must please, and have little realistic recourse for offences. Where convention facilitates these pairings to spend time alone and unobserved by others. But the specific context could be anything. Could be competitive bridge. Working at a car dealership. Getting in with your trade union. Being allowed to plate the desserts.
But it won’t be a national scandal if the chef at your local $30/plate restaurant is getting the new girl drunk and high so he can fuck her with the vague promise that she might gain some favor and advance in the kitchen.
There are also “open secrets” where people do take the actions that their relative power allows, but it’s still kept quiet because the victims don’t want the attention and risk of coming forward about it. Like a few years there was some controversy about a particular streamer getting kicked off twitch over unspecified reasons, which I only learned about (I’d never heard of him or seen anything he did, and couldn’t tell you who he was; I don’t think it was Dr Disrespect, but it was around the time he was kicked off twitch and it was obviously the same sort of crime being done) because a games industry insider I was talking with brought it up and was basically like “yeah it’s exactly the reason that’s the first thing anyone assumes, and that’s why this guy has been banned from all our events and a whole bunch of other events for years already. Everyone knows, but the victims don’t want to come forward so no one has actionable details beyond just keeping him out of stuff.”